






* v VVAl'o *** &* .fax % 





















•%% v*fa&* ^ >*k'<£'' + * ■ *>a 

















>o< 
























"V**»~"* ' <& 








\ %/ 













.* **o'* ! 





'" % ^ -*^f- V SSI'"- **** -'&'• ^ 







^ ^ ^ 




* *«^^\ ^o< . % ^«B\ **os* :£fi^^*- '-^^ o* 





.0' 




3 V 







^ 







^ . 




'"^ ^ -fife- ^ ^ -^i- ^ * '&&- ++ < 



SPEECH 



HON. A. G. BROWN, OF MISSISSIPPI, 



THE SLAVERY QUESTION; 



</ 



/\ S / DKLITKRED 



> 



IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, DECEMBER 22, 1856 



WASHINGTON 
1850. 



SPEECH. 



The Senate having under consideration the motion of Mr. Rusk to refer so much of the 
President's message as relates to foreign affairs to the Committee on Foreign Relations — 

Mr. BROWN said: Mr. President, when the President's message 
came into the Senate, and was read by the Secretary, the first pro- 
ceeding that followed was the rising of the senator from New 
Hampshire [Mr. Hale] to make a violent attack on the President and 
on the sentiments of his message. He based that attack chiefly on 
the ground that the President had intimated a purpose in certain 
quarters to attack slavery in the States. This speech of the senator 
from New Hampshire was quickly followed by speeches of a similar 
character from the senator from New York, [Mr. Seward,] and others 
on that side of the Chamber who sympathize with them. These 
assaults have fallen here as they will fall elsewere — harmless shafts. 
They have inflicted no injury on the President, and they will inflict 
none on the great cause which he so manfully defended. 

While assailing the President in coarse and unseemly phrase, these 
gentlemen have not failed to cover their own positions. In all they 
have said, from the hour that the message was read to this, the most 
casual observer will not have failed to perceive that, on some account, 
their tactics, have been changed. The bold and defiant air of the 
conquering hero has given place to the subdued manner of defeated 
soldiers. Senators now read us long speeches, indignantly denying 
what I had supposed, up to within the last few days, was an admitted 
proposition everywhere, to wit: that when the proper time came, 
slavery was to be assaulted in the States. There seems, however, to 
have been a falling back from this position ; why, I certainly do not 
know, but I have a strong suspicion that gentlemen have found them- 
selves, even at the north, in advance of public sentiment, and it has 
been found prudent at least to fall back on more tenable ground. 

While we have witnessed this exhibition in the Senate, elsewhere 
an exhibition not less remarkable has been going on. Politicians 
who certainly express no open sympathy with these gentlemen, seem 
to have been advancing from a position whichj they occupied hereto- 
fore, and taking one in closer proximity to the gentlemen on the other 
side of the Chamber. My reading of these counter-movements, the 
falling back of the one party and the advancing of the other, is this : 
that they mean for the time being to camp in sight of each other, and 
during the next four years to make forays on joint account against the 
National Democracy ; and when the Presidential contest of 1860 



comes on, they will go into battle under the same leader, and fight 
under banners so nearly alike that a soldier belonging under one being 
found fighting under the other, will subject himself to no charge of 
desertion. 

I was not prepared at first for the indignant denials which we have 
heard from the other side of the Chamber, that there was a purpose 
to assail slavery in the States. I was not, because at first I did not 
understand this change of tactics; P had supposed that gentlemen- 
were more than half inclined to have it known that such an -attack 
was in contemplation, and that at the proper time their purposes 
would be made manifest. I knew very well it had been quite the 
custom at all times when these purposes were directly charged on 
gentlemen, for them to throw them aside with a sort of " Oh no — no 
we don't — no such thing." But the burning indignation which has 
been lately manifested has struck me with surprise. My surprise was 
manifested in the beginning of this debate. I ventured to quote from 
memory certain passages from the speeches of gentlemen, manifesting 
as I then thought, and still think,, purposes altogether different from 
those avowed in this debate. I spoke from memory alone ; but since 
then I have given more critical attention to the recorded speeches of 
gentlemen, and can now speak with more accuracy, and with greater 
confidence. I do not mean to say that senators deliberately disavow 
their real sentiments — that would violate the decorum of this body. 
But I will say that if they have never contemplated an attack on 
slavery in the States, they have been singularly unfortunate in the use 
of language. I intend to-day to call particular attention to certain 
expressions heretofore used by them in the discussion of this question. 

But before I do so, let me set not only myself right, but let me 
set those right for whom I speak. I recur very briefly to a speech 
delivered by myself on the 30th of January, 1850, and shall read two 
or three short sentences from that speech. The party with whom I 
acted at that day, like the party with whom I act now, had been 
accused of a direct and deliberate purpose to bring about such a state 
of public affairs as must necessarily result in a dissolution of the 
Union. Denying that charge, speaking for myself, speaking for those 
who acted with me, speaking, as I then believed, and as I now believe, 
for the great mass of the southern people, I used this language : 

•■ I repeat, we deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution — reverencing the Union — 
holding in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and 
illustrious ancestry — there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner than dissolve 
the political association of these States. If there was any point short of absolute ruin to 
ourselves and desolation to our country, at which these aggressive measures would certainly 
stop, we would say at once, go to that point and give us peace." 

So I say to-day, sir. Speaking for myself and for those in whose 
name I am authorized to speak, I declare before the Senate and the 
world, that this Union has nowhere more devoted friends than they 
and I. And when I have spoken for those for whom I am authorized 
by election to speak, I feel that I may safely go further and say that 
nineteen-twentieths of the whole people of the southern States agree 
with us. Point out any spot short of absolute ruin to ourselves, and 
desolation to our section of the country, and give us the guarantee 
that when you have gone to that point, these aggressive and perplex- 



ing measures, legislative and others, shall certainly cease, and we will 
Bay to you at once, go to that point . But, sir, I went on that occasion, 
as I do now, a step further ; I said : 

" Does any man desire to know at what time, and for what cause, I would dissolve the 
Union ? I will tell him. At the first moment after you consummate your first act of aggres- 
sion upon slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved ; and for this reason : such an 
act, perpetrated after the warning we have given you, would evince a settled purpose to 
interpose your authority in the management of our domestic affairs, thus degrading us from 
our rightful position as equals to a state of dependence and subordination. Do not mistake 
me ; Id) not say that such an act would, peruse, justify disunion ; I do not say that our 
exclusion from the Territories would alone justify it ; I do not siy that the destruction of the 
slave trade in the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition 
of the slave trade among the States, would justify it. It may be that not one, nor two, nor 
all of these combined, would justify disunion. These are but the initiative steps — they lead 
you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not take these steps." 

I meant then, Mr. President, to say what I say now, that no man 
in the south has ever taken the ground that the mere act of our 
exclusion from the Territories would dissolve the Union, if that could 
be the end of agitation. No southern man has ever taken the ground, 
and no one takes it now, that the abolition of slavery in this District 
might not be submitted to, if that was to be the end. But we have 
looked, and are looking for the day, and have a right, in consequence 
of the declarations constantly emanating from high quarters, to an- 
ticipate the hour when the whole northern free-soil phalanx will be 
turned loose in one mighty assault upon slavery in the States. I have 
taught my people, as I would teach them to-day, to prepare for thii 
assault. Defend the outposts. Yield not an inch of ground. It is 
better to die defending the door-sill than admit the enemy and then 
■ee the hearth-stone bathed in blood. 

On the occasion to which I have referred, I drew a picture of what 
must be our condition if these schemes of emancipation should ever 
be carried out. Then, as now, gentlemen denied that there was any 
intention to interfere with slavery in the States ; then, as now, we had 
assurances of fraternal feelings on the part of our northern brothers. 
I replied then as I do now : 

" You tell us, sir, there is no intention of pushing us to extremities like these. I do not 
doubt the sincerity of gentlemen who make this avowal. If there was fixedness 'in their 
positions, I would believe them — 1 would trust them. If members of Congress were to the 
political, what stars are to the planetary system, I would take their solemn, and, I hope, 
sincere declara ions, and be satisfitd. I should feel secure. But a few days, a brief space, 
and you will pass away, and your places will be filled by men more hostile than you, as you 
are more hostile than your predecessors, and the next who come after your successors will 
be more hostile than they." 

I then thought, as we all know now, that the abolition sentiment 
at the north was fearfully on the increase ; that, bursting the fetters 
that bound it to a handful of despised fanatics, it was invading all 
ranks of society, and taking captive thousands and hundreds of thou- 
sands who a few years ago spurned it as a viper and shunned it as 
they would a pestilence. What have we not seen and heard? Within 
the last few days we have heard sentiments avowed on this floor which, 
a few years ago, would have found no sponsor anywhere outside of an 
abolition convention. Now they are responded to by a large minority 
here, and by a much larger minority, if not indeed a majority, in the 
other house of Congress. We cannot close our eyes to the light that 
is before us. We have seen this party rise from a little, despised band, 



6 

and grow stronger and stronger, until it marches in triumph through 
twelve northern States, and is defeated in the remaining four by a vote 
so close as to make our victory over it almost a defeat. Was I not 
right, then, in refusing to take the promises of these men? Where 
are the men of that day? G-one, sir, gone. Go to the other house, 
and you will find their places filled by the men whose coming I pre- 
dicted five years ago. 

Mr. President, it is not my purpose to charge senators with false- 
hood, and certainly I shall not assume the privilege of counselling 
those opposed to me ; but there can be no harm in my saying to the 
free-soil portion of the Senate, your supporters at home do not believe 
you are sincere in declaring your opposition to any interference with 
slavery in the States. They know that, without such interference, 
there will never be one bondman less ; and whenever you convince 
them that you are sincere, they will turn you out, and send others 
here more hostile to slavery than you, as you are more hostile than 
those who went before you. And, to tell the truth, I think they will 
serve you right in turning you out. If you did not mean to attack 
slavery in the States, you ought not to have taught others to believe 
you did ; and this you did, as I shall now proceed to show. 

I take the first in age among you, as he is certainly first in talent 
and position, the senator from New York, [Mr. Seward.] When the 
other day I had occasion to quote by memory from a very remarkable 
speech of that senator, he did not deny the accuracy of my quotation, 
but, as senators will recollect, he referred me to Redfield's edition of 
his speeches, and avowed his willingness to abide by anything found 
in those volumes. I called at the library, and failed to obtain the 
books. Communicating that fact to the senator, I do him the justice 
in this public manner to say that he was so kind as to present me with 
a copy of his speeches, a volume of which I now hold in my hand. 
Unlike my friend from Tennessee, [Mr. Jones,] I mean to take these 
volumes home. I mean to show my constituents, from an authorized 
edition of the senator's speeches, how much of venom against them 
and their institutions he has managed to compress within the narrow 
limits of a little volume like this, and if the Senate will indulge me, 
I will give a specimen now, not only for the edification of the Senate, 
but for the information of all independent outsiders. In a speech de- 
livered by the senator from New York, at Cleveland, in 1848, he used 
this language, (I read from the third volume of Redfield's edition of 
the speeches of William H. Seward:) 

" ' What, then!' you say, ' can nothing be done for freedom, because the public consience 
is inert? Yes, much can be done — everything can be done. Slavery can be limited to its 
present bounds ; it can be ameliorated ; it can be, and must be, abolished ; and you and I can 
and must do it. The task is as simple and easy as its consummation will be beneficent 
and its rewards glorious."' 

Sir, I asked the senator the other day, speaking from memory, as 
I ask him now, speaking from an authorized edition of his speeches, 
what did he mean by that language? When addressing himself to a 
northern audience, he said " slavery can and must be abolished, and 
you and I can and must do it!" What did he mean, if he did not 
contemplate an attack upon slavery in the States? Was it to be done 
by the concurrence of the southern States, as the senator would now 



persuade us lie means to have it clone if it shall he done at all? If 
so, why did not the senator so declare at the time? Why, addressing 
an audience hostile to slavery, and whom he was persuading to hecome 
still more hostile, did he say "slavery can and must be abolished, and 
you and I can and must do it?" Did the senator anticipate the con- 
currence of the south? Then, why no allusion to the south? Did he 
anticipate that the suuth was to do the work unaided by the north? 
Then why appeal to the north? But I go on with his speech : 

" Wherein do the strength and security of slavery lie ? You answer that they lie in the 
Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of all slaveholding States. 
Not at all. They lie in the erroneous sentiment of the Americau people. Constitutions 
and laws can no more rise above the virtue of the peofle than the limpid stream can 
climb above its native spring. Inculcate, then, the love of freedom and the equal rights of 
man under the paternal roof ; see to it that they are taught in the schools and in the churches ; 
reform vour own code ; extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays his weary 
limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your paternal gods; correct your own 
error, that slavery has any constitutional guarantee which may not be released, and ought 
not to be relinquished." 

Here we have it, sir. The senator from New York meditates no 
attack on slavery in the States. Oh, no — not he ! He only desires 
the northern people to understand how much they are at liberty to 
hate slavery. Their indignation need not be restrained by any vulgar 
fancy that slavery is protected by the Constitution or the laws, either 
State or national. Their virtue can rise above the Constitution and 
the laws. The way is pointed out: inculcate the love of freedom — 
that is, hostility to slavery — under the paternal roof. Yes, teach 
your children to lisp with their earliest breath anathemas against the 
south. Teach it in the schools. Let the schoolmaster understand 
that he has a higher duty to perform than merely to educate his 
pupils. He may teach them to read and write, instruct them in 
geography, and point them to the great moral laws that govern the 
universe, and yet there is a higher duty for him to perform ; he must 
teach them to hate slavery, so that when they are grown up men and 
women, the Constitution and laws shall not rise above their virtue. 
The servant of God, as he ascends the sacred desk, is told by the sen- 
ator from New York to preach, not Christ and Him crucified, but 
freedom — freedom to all mankind, and freedom especially to the poor 
down-trodden slave. And yet the senator has no purpose now, or at 
any time to come, to attack slavery in the States. Then why this 
teaching? Why teach children under the paternal roof to hate 
slavery ? Why teach it in the schools and in the churches ? Why 
reverse the Scriptural admonition to love your neighbors as yourselves, 
and thus teach all mankind to hate the south and despise its people ? 
If there is no purpose to interfere with the south, its people, or its 
institutions, to what end does the senator direct all this advice? 

Mr. President, the senator gives us the key to his motive. He says, 
on page 302 of the .volume in my hand, "Whenever" — yes, sir, mark 
it well — "whenever the public mind shall will the abolition of slavery, 
the way will open for it/' There it is, sir — whenever the public mind 
shall will the abolition of slavery; and then he says, in plain Saxon: 
"Prepare the public mind under the paternal roof — prepare it in the 
schools and in the churches — when it is ready the way will open for 
it." But the senator has no purpose to interfere with slavery in the 



8 

States — good, easy man! — he only wants to prove that the Constitu- 
tion and laws cannot rise above the virtue of the people. Mr. Presi- 
dent, I give the senator credit for all the talents he possesses, but he 
has no right to assume that all the rest of mankind are fools. 

"Say to slavery," says the senator, "when it shows its bond and 
demands the pound of flesh, that if it draws one drop of blood its life 
shall pay the forfeit." What does that mean? What is the bond 
here alluded to but the federal Constitution? When the master 
comes with that Constitution in one hand, and the laws enacted in 
pursuance of it in the other, and demands the return of his fugitive 
slave, who perchance has taken shelter under the very roof of the 
senator from New York, that senator says, like Shylock's judge, "Yes, 
I award you the return of the slave; but I impose conditions — such 
conditions as must forever render my judgment inoperative and void. 
You have a right, under the Constitution, to your slave ; the law 
doth give it, and I award it; take your pound of flesh, but spill not 
one drop of blood ; take your slave, but be cautious that you touch not 
even the hem of the garments of freedom ; for if you do, your life shall 
pay the forfeit." Such, sir, are the teachings of the senator; such 
his ethics ; such that moral law of the people over which the Consti- 
tution can no more climb than the stream can rise above its native 
spring ! 

But again: "Extend a cordial welcome to the fugitive who lays 
his weary limbs at your door, and defend him as you would your 
paternal gods." True, the Constitution declares that fugitives shall 
be delivered up; but I tell you, says the senator, that "slavery has 
no constitutional guarantee that may not be released." Disobey the 
Constitution ; give a cordial welcome to the fugitive ; defend him as 
you would your paternal gods; strike down the master, and set the 
bondman free. The Constitution may sanction slavery — the Bible 
may tolerate it — God may have ordained it; but what of all that? 
We must have a higher law. 

If it shall be shown that the Constitution sanctions slavery, we will 
demand an anti -slavery Constitution; if the Bible tolerates slavery, 
we will demand an anti-slavery Bible ; let it be proven that God or- 
dains slavery, and we will shriek for an anti-slavery God. Thus is 
the Constitution denounced, the Bible derided, and God insulted on 
his throne by men who impiously endeavor to prove what the Consti- 
tution, the Bible, and God himself deny — that a negro is the white 
man's equal. But there is no intention to interfere with slavery in 
the States. We mean to abolish it; we mean to teach abolition in 
the schools and in the churches, and under the paternal roof; we 
must defend runaway negroes as we would our paternal gods ; we 
must correct our error that the Constitution gives any protection to 
slavery which we may not release; and above all, we must teach the 
people that their virtue is not to be overcome by the Constitution; 
only let their minds be prepared for abolition, and the way will open. 
But we must not interfere with slavery in the States. Will the sen- 
ator tell us what slavery it is he means to abolish, if it is not slavery 
in the States? Does he know of any slaverv anywhere else but in the 
States ? 



9 

We have had intimations that the enemies of domestic slavery ex- 
pect their final triumph through the action of the southern States — 
that by a sort of "moral suasion" the ownew of slaves will be in- 
duced finally to give them up. On this precise point I shall have 
something to say presently. Before I proceed to that point, however, 
let me make a passing allusion to the higher law doctrine of the sena- 
tor from New York. From the first volume of Red field's authorized 
edition of the senator's speeches I read the following : 

'* We hold no arbitrary authority over anything, whether acquired lawfully or seized by 
usurpation. The Constitution regulates our stewardship ; the Constitution devotes the do- 
main to union, to justice, to de ence, to welfare, and to liberty. But there is a higher 
law than the Cowstitution which regulates our authority over the domain." 

A higher law ! The senator, by universal admission, has the 
honor, if it be an honor, of having first taught in the political schools 
of our country this doctrine of a higher law. I want to show how 
apt some of his scholars are. Some of the pupils of the distinguished 
senator from New York assembled in convention in the State of Ohio 
for the purpose of nominating a candidate for governor, and resolved 
as follows : 

"Resolved, That we cannot respect, nor can we confide in, those ' lower law' doctors of 
divinity who hold human laws above the laws of God ; nor can we concur in their teachings, 
that the Divine law is subject to congressional compromise. 

" Resolved, That we hereby give it to be distinctly understood by this nation and the world 
that, as abolitionists, considering that the strength of our cause lies in its righteousness, and 
our hopes for it in our conformity to the laws of God, and our support for the rights of man, 
we owe to the Sovereign Ruler of the Uniwrse, as a proof of our allegiance to Him in all our 
civil relations and offices, whether as friends, citizens, or as public functionaries, sworn to 
rapport the Constitution of the United States, to regard and treat the third clause of the instru- 
ment, whenever applied in the case op a fugitive slave, as utterly null and void, and 
consequently as forming no part of the Constitution of the United States, whenever wa are 
oalled upon or sworn to support it." 

There is the result of the senator's teachings. He uses the influ- 
ence of his great name and his high position to declare, before the 
Senate and to the world, that there is a law higher than the Consti- 
tution. His pupils, taking up the doctrine, declare that, when they 
are sworn to support the Constitution, they are at liberty to treat as 
null and void that clause which requires the return of a fugitive slave. 
Whether the pupils understand precisely as the instructor intended 
to teach, it is not my business to determine. That is a duty which 
devolves on the senator himself. It is sufficient for me to know that 
he has taught them to believe there is a law higher than the Consti- 
tution, and that they, following his teachings, repudiate the Consti- 
tution, and spurn the obligations of the oath that binds them to 
support it. One set of his admiring friends march right home to 
victory by planting their feet on the neck of the Constitution, and 
another part cry out for an anti-slavery Constitution, anti-slavery 
Bible, and anti-slavery God. 

But, sir, I have other speeches not contained in an authorized edi- 
tion of the senator's works, but I suppose from the title page not lesa 
entitled to credit. I read from a pamphlet, entitled "The Dangers 
of Extending Slavery, and the Contest and the Crisis ; two speeches 
of William H. Seward, published by the Republican Association: the 
tenth English edition; Buell & Blanchard, printers, Washington, 



10 

D. C." The speeches must have been published in very small edi- 
tions, or have received great favor in certain quarters. Now, I beg 
to call attention to a few passages from the speech delivered at Al- 
bany, October 12, 1855. 

I do so for several reasons, and, among them, for this reason : I 
want to show how little was thought of the idea of moral suasion, of 
abolishing slavery through the consent of the masters, when this 
speech was made. This idea of moral suasion — of bringing up the 
owners of slaves to the great work of emancipation — was not thought 
of when this speech was delivered. The senator is too well acquainted 
with the springs of human action to suppose that he could ever induce 
slaveholders to adopt his ideas by language such as I shall now read: 

" All agree that in every case, and throughout all hazards, aristocracy must be abhorred 
and avoided, and republican institutions must be defended and preserved. 

" Think it not strange or extravagant when I say that an aristocracy has already arisen 
here, and that it is already undermining the republic. An aristocracy could notarise in any 
country where there was no privileged class, and no special foundation on which such a class 
could permanently stand On the contrary, every State, however republican its constitution 
may be, is sure to become an aristocracy, sooner or later, if it has a privileged class standing 
firmly on an enduring special foundation ; and if that class is continually growing stronger 
and stronger, and the unprivileged classes are continually growing weaker and weaker. 

" A privileged class has existed in this country from an early period of its settlement. 
Slaveholders constitute that class. They have special foundation on which to stand— namely, 
personal dominion over slaves." 

Was it by language such as this that the senator hoped to bring 
the slaveholders to the point of joining in his great scheme of eman- 
cipation ? Was there ever an attack more insidious, or one better 
calculated to bring the slaveholder into discredit? A little further 
on the senator exclaims : " Oh, how blessed a thing it is for brethren 
to dwell together in unity !" He comes to bury Caesar, not to praise 
him. While he speaks of his brethren of the south, he teaches others 
to regard them as enemies. He says they are the enemies of liberty, 
already engaged in undermining the republic. 

The senators' s audience, on the occasion referred to, were told plainly 
that the slaveholders of the south constituted a privileged class— an 
aristocracy— and that an aristocracy was dangerous to the existence 
of the republic. Why did he thus teach, unless he meant to bring 
this privileged class into reproach ? If there be in the south a privileged 
class— an aristocracy, in the language of the senator— and that aris- 
tocracy is dangerous to the existence of the republic, does the senator 
propose no remedy? Does he mean simply to complain of the existence 
of the evil, without attempting, in any capacity whatever, to remedy 
that evil ? He goes on : 

" The spirit of the revolutionary age was adverse to that privileged class. America and 
Europe were firmly engaged then in prosecuting what was expected to be a speedy, complete, 
and universal abolition of African slavery. 

Here, again, the universal abolition of African slavery is spoken of 
as an act°necessary to place the government in harmony with the 
spirit of the revolutionary age. Still there was no design to interfere 
with slavery in the States. The great scheme of universal abolition 
was to be carried out through the influence of moral suasion, and 
that influence was to be effectually exerted by calling the slaveholders 



11 

a privileged class, an aristocracy whose special privileges were danger- 
ous to the republic, and the liberties of the people. 

" O shame ! where is thy blush?" 

See how the senator lays down one proposition after another, dove- 
tailing each into its predecessor in a manner to draw the public mind 
to a particular conclusion, that conclusion being that by all the memo- 
ries of their revolutionary sires, by all their hopes of preserving re- 
publicanism in this country, they are called upon to wage a ceaseless, 
unrelenting, and never-dying warfare on slavery wherever it exists ; 
and yet the senator comes here to-day and says : "No ; I indignantly 
repudiate the idea that either I or my friends ever dreamed of assailing 
slavery in the States." After going on through a long argument, 
which I have no time to read, nor the Senate patience to hear, the 
senator says, I read again from the Albany speech : 

"I will only ask, in concluding this humiliating rehearsal, whether there is not in this 
favored country a privileged class ; whether it does not stand on an enduring foundation ; 
whether it is not growing stronger and stronger, while the unprivileged class grows weaker 
and weaker ; whether its further growth and extent would not be, not merely detrimental, 
but dangerous ; and whether there is any hope to arrest that growth and extension hereafter, 
if the attempt shall not be made now ? 

" The change that has become at last so necessary is as easy to be made as it is necessary. 
The ivhole number of slaveholders is only three hundred and fifty thousand — one hundredth part 
of the entire population of the country. If you add their parents, children, immediate rela- 
tives, and dependents, they are two millions — one fifteenth part of the American people." 

What, sir, is the object — the purpose of the senator in making these 
declarations? Why does he proclaim that this privileged class in the 
south is dangerous to republican institutions — that it exists there in 
violation of the great principle for which the revolutionary battles 
were fought, and that those who uphold it are only three hundred 
and fifty thousand ? For what purpose, let me ask you, did the 
senator from New York present the case in this form to the mind of 
his audience at Albany ? That senator never speaks without a pur- 
pose. He does not explain ; and it he will not, I needs must be left 
to the resources of my own mind for an answer. 

The senator knew that no chord in the heart of our people was so 
easily touched, or responded so promptly, as that one which binds it 
to the memories of the Kevolution, and he rightly concluded that our 
people everywhere, north and south, were deeply imbued with repub- 
lican sentiments. If, then, he could persuade them that there was a 
little handful of three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders at the 
south warring against the great principles established in our Kevolu- 
tion, and breaking down republican institutions in the country, why, 
then, the twenty-five millions who do not belong to this privileged 
class — to this aristocracy — would rise up, and will the abolition of 
slavery; and then, in his own language, there being "a will, the 
way would open for it." 

It is not my business to explore the recesses of any man's heart; but 
I apprehend the object of the senator in making the speech to which I 
have alluded, was to persuade the mighty north that it ought to ivill 
the abolition of slavery. He told them of its dangerous tendencies. 
He pointed to the feeble prop by which it is sustained. It is upheld, 
said he, by only three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders ; and 
you who are not slaveholders are more than twenty-five millions of 



12 

people ; only have the will to overthrow this great monstrosity, and 
the way will immediately open to you ! Such, if not the language, is 
at least the teaching of the senator from New York ; and yet he comes 
to the Senate to-day to tell us he never contemplated, never coun- 
selled, and never heiieved anybody else contemplated, or counselled, 
an attack on slavery in the States! 

But, Mr. President, there is a deeper meaning — a larger significance 
to this speech of the senator. There are three hundred and fifty 
thousand slaveholding aristocrats in the south, says the senator — men 
at war with liberty, and dangerous to the republic. They are only 
one in one hundred of the entire population ; or if you add, he says, 
" the children, relatives, and dependents, they are one in fifteen ;" 
consequently fourteen parts out of every fifteen of the entire popula- 
tion have no interest in slavery. They are, as he seems to_ conclude, 
mere hewers of wood and drawers of water to the slaveholding aristo- 
crats. 

These suggestions come from no friendly spirit, Mr. President. 
The* open a wide field for speculation ; and if I did not feel there was- 
a necessity for my being brief, I would ask the senator to join me in a 
ramble through that field. To him it is not a field of treasures, as he 
supposes. If he expects, by appeals like these, to turn the hearts of 
the non-slaveholders of the south against slavery, he will miss his aim. 
They may have no pecuniary interest in slavery, but they have asocial 
interest at stake that is worth more to them than all the wealth of all 
the Indies. Suppose the senator shall succeed in his ideas of universal 
abolition — what is to be the social condition of the races in the south ? 
Can they live together in peace? No one pretends to think they can. 
Will the white man be allowed to maintain his superiority there? 
Let us examine this proposition. There are in my State about three 
hundred and fifty thousand whites, and about an equal number of 
blacks. Suppose the negroes were all set free. What would be the 
immediate and necessary consequence ? A struggle for the supremacy 
would instantly ensue. White immigration to the State would cease 
of course. The whites already there would have but little motive to 
struggle in the maintenance of the unequal contest between the blacks 
and their millions of sympathizing friends in the free States. The 
consequence would be that the men of fortune would gather up their 
transferable property, and seek a home in some other country. The 
poor men — those of little means — the very men on whom the senator 
relies to aid him in carrying out his great scheme of emancipation, 
would alone be compelled to remain : their poverty, and not their will, 
would compel them to remain. In the course of a few years, with no 
one going to the State, and thousands on thousands leaving it in one 
constant stream, the present equilibrium between the races would be 
lost. In a few years, the disparity would probably be some three, 
four, or five to one in favor of the blacks. In this state of things, it 
is not difficult to see what would be the white man's condition. ^ If he 
should be allowed to maintain his equality he might think himself 
fortunate ; superiority would be a thing not to be dreamed of. The 
negroes being vastly in the majority, would probably claim the ascen- 
dency in the social, and in all other circles. If the white man, reduced 



13 

to such a condition, were allowed to marry his sons to negro wives, or 
his daughters to negro husbands, he might bless his stars. If the 
senator from New York expects the aid of non-slaveholders in the 
south in bringing about this state of social relations, let me tell him 
he is greatly mistaken. If I had to take my choice to-day between an 
army of large slaveholders and an army of non-slaveholders to defend 
the institutions of the south, I would take the latter. The first would 
fight to defend their property, the last to maintain their social supe- 
riority ; the one would see an outlet after defeat, the other would see 
themselves degraded below the level of the negroes, their sons married 
to negro wives, and their daughters consigned to the embraces of negro 
husbands. I tell the senator that his philosophy has failed — his fine- 
spun theories will all explode, when submitted to the test of the plain, 
common sense of the non-slaveholding population of the southern States. 
The senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] was equally particu- 
lar with the senator from New York, to assure us that he contem- 
plated no attack on slavery in the States. Indeed he became some- 
what indignant at the idea that any one should intimate that he had 
ever contemplated any such thing. I have no authorized edition of 
the senator's speeches ; and if I read him incorrectly, he is present, I 
am glad to see, and will no doubt correct me. The senator knows 
what the anti-slavery party mean to do — I mean the Garrison and 
Wendell Phillips party. Did the senator from Massachusetts use 
this language: 

" The anti-slavery party alone is too weak They are few in numbers, though their 
policy, I believe, will yet be impressed upon the country, but the time is not yet." 

The senator, I repeat, knows who the anti-slavery party are, and 
he knows their purposes. Did he use that language ? If he did, the 
inference is irresistible that he believed in the soundness of the anti- 
slavery theories, and was ready to embrace them at the right time. If 
he did not so believe, and was not so ready, why did he declare, "but 
the time is not yet?" 

Mr. WILSON. Will the senator allow me to make an explana- 
tion? 

Mr. BROWN. Certainly. 

Mr. WILSON. I beg leave to assure the senator from Mississippi 
that the object of my making that statement was not to refer to the 
Garrison abolitionists as the anti- slavery men, or the radical or Ger- 
rit Smith abolitionists ; but to speak of the anti-slavery men of the 
country whose sentiments were embodied in the Buffalo platform of 
1848, and the Pittsburg platform of 1852. The doctrines of the free- 
soil party were the doctrines to which I referred. I said that those 
who agreed in those platforms were in a small minority. I believed 
the sentiments embodied in those platforms were correct, and would 
yet be impressed on the country. Nothing in those platforms con- 
templates any action by the Congress of the United States, or any 
interference whatever with slavery in the slaveholding States in the 
Union. I never entertained the thought that we had that power, and 
I never proposed to usurp or exercise it. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, the senator admits that he used the 
language, but avoids its force by saying, in effect, that it was ad- 



14 

dressed to parties other than those I have named. The language was 
addressed to some one who was in advance of the senator ; and whether 
it was Garrison or Gerrit Smith, or some one of less ultra views, makes 
but little difference. It is the language of entreaty, addressed to some 
one imploring him notfto go so fast. He says your sentiments are all 
right, hut the time has not come for impressing them on the country. 
I submit to the Senate how far any party must have gone when the 
senator from Massachusetts had to call on them to stop ; and I submit 
to the senator himself, whether he did not contemplate an advance 
movement when he said, "The time is not yet." 

The senator will pardon me if I say these are significant declara- 
tions ; and when coupled with remarks such as those I have quoted 
from the speeches of his friend from New York, they become too po- 
tential to be passed by in silence. 

JVlr. SEWARD. Mr. President, I am interested very much in this 
argument of the honorable senator, and I think it is a very fair and 
senatorial mode of proceeding. I have not the least objection what- 
ever to his analysis of the arguments and speeches which I have made. 
It is not my purpose to answer ; but I know the honorable senator is 
proceeding in a manner which indicates what I might expect from 
him, fairness. I beg leave to say now, rather than at some other time 
in the debate, that I appeal to him, in the revision of his remarks, not 
to overstate, as I think he has erroneously done, disclaimers and de- 
nials which he assumes I have made here in this debate. On referring 
to the few remarks which I addressed to the Senate, on the first day 
that this question arose, he will see the precise extent to which I did 
go ; and I would not have him present me to the people of the coun- 
try as denying or disclaiming anything more than I have actually 
done, and I know he does not wish it. I hope the honorable senator 
will excuse me for interrupting him on this particular point, as I have 
no wish to interfere with his argument. 

Mr. BROWN. Certainly ; I do not wish, at this particular point, 
to review what I have said in regard to the senator from New York, 
my present dealing being with the senator from Massachusetts. I 
turn over to another production of the honorable senator. AVhen I 
stated the other day that there had been a sort of billing and cooing, 
a sort of caressing, a sort of old-fashioned courtship, between certain 
gentlemen here and the ultra-abolition party, the senator and his 
friends came forward and very indignantly denied it. Denials have 
come upon us thick and fast from that day to this, not only through 
the senators, but through their newspaper journals all over the coun- 
try. I have had a perfect shower of newspapers rained on me from 
every part of the country, all indignantly denying that I was at all 
right in assuming that there was any sort of attempt to get up a po- 
litical marriage between the abolitionists of the Garrison and Wen- 
dell Phillips school and the Black Republican party. I ask the sen- 
ator from Massachusetts whether he did not, on the 20th of June, 
1855, address this letter to Wendell Phillips? I need not say to the 
Senate who Wendell Phillips is. It is sufficient to say that he "out- 
Herods Herod," he " out-Garrisons Garrison," he " out- Parkers Par- 



15 

ker." He goes further than the renowned Beecher himself. This I 
understand to he the letter of the Senator : 

" I hope, my dear sir, that we shall all strive to unite and combine all the friends of freedom; 
that we shall forget each other's faults and shortcomings in the past ; and all labor to secure 
that co-operation by which alone the slave is to be emancipated, and the domination of his 
master broken. Let us remember that more than three mitlione of bondmen, groaning under 
nameless woes, demand that we shall cease to reproach each other, and that we labor for 
their deliverance." 

Did the senator write that letter? 

Mr. WILSON. Will the senator allow me a word on that subject ? 
He has put a categorical question. I am ready to answer the ques- 
tion ; but I would like to put my own construction on that letter. 

Mr. BROWN. Any construction the senator pleases. I cannot say 
that I will adopt his construction, but I will hear it. 

Mr. WILSON. Well, Mr. President, I received an invitation from 
Wendell Phillips to attend a meeting, and to address that meeting. 
I wrote that letter. 

Mr. BROWN. So I thought. 

Mr. WILSON. I agree to every word of it now, as I did then ; and 
there is nothing in that letter inconsistent with anything I have ut- 
tered upon this floor. I am opposed to slavery. I am in favor of its 
abolition everywhere where I have the power. Mr. Phillips, as the 
senator says, takes extreme views. I differ from him altogether in 
regard to them. He is a gentleman of great talent and character — 
in my opinion the greatest living orator on this continent. I have 
heard no man in the country during the last twenty years — and I have 
heard the foremost orators of the country — that I consider his equal. 

My idea is this : I want all men who are opposed to slavery to take 
a moderate and reasonable position, to abandon the extreme notions 
which those men entertain, to oppose the extension of slavery, sepa- 
rate the federal government from its connexion with it, banish the 
negro discussions that we are having in these halls, and leave slavery 
in the slave States, where the Constitution leaves it, to the care of the 
people of those several States. I believe that when that is done, the 
liberal, high-minded, just men of the south will, in their own time 
and in their own way, bring about a safe emancipation. That is my 
view of the matter. It was so then, and is so now. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, Mr. President, the senator admits that he 
wrote the letter. My charge was, that there was an attempt, on the 
part' of these Republican senators, to get up a political marriage with 
the abolitionists, and the denial was to that charge. The senator 
from Massachusetts denied the charge, and was at great pains, in his 
speech the other day, to complain that I had made certain remarks in 
reference to Garrison and his friends, and had coupled them with the 
senator and his friends ; in all of which he intended to discard the 
idea that there was any kind of affiliation or political association be- 
tween the Republican senators here and these ultra abolitionists out 
of doors ; and yet, when I introduce a letter which comes precisely to 
the point, showing that the senator himself had addressed one of the 
extremest of these men, saying : "You and I ought to act together ; 
you and I must act together ; three millions of bondmen groan, and 
you and I must come to their deliverance;" when I show that the 



16 

senator addressed this appeal to the most ultra of the abolitionists, 
the senator comes forward to palliate. But, sir, what becomes of his 
denial that he ever courted the support or co-operation of these 
people — 

Mr. WILSON. Will the senator allow me a word? 
Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir ; certainly. 

Mr. WILSON. I made the denial ; I make it now. The Garrison 
abolitionists do not vote. I believe them to be sincerely opposed to 
slavery, but they do not vote. They have taken positions which, in 
my judgment, are wrong. What Iwished was this : to have the men 
who act with them abandon their extreme notions, and takea mode- 
rate position, and stand where we stand — upon a purely constitutional 
and national basis. 

Mr. BROWN. Then, sir, why did the senator say to Mr. Phillips, 
" Let us all labor together to secure the co-operation by which alone 
the slave is to be emancipated, and the domination of his master 
broken?" 

Mr. WILSON. I explained that. 

Mr. BROWN. Is not that the precise point to which Phillips is 
fighting — to emancipate the slave and break the domination of his 
master? Where? In the States. Is there slavery anywhere else 
but in the States ? When you emancipate the slave, you must eman- 
cipate the slave in the States ; and when you break the domination of 
the master, there is no domination to be broken anywhere but in the 
States. Then, when the senator said to Phillips, " Let us all labor 
together to this end," was he not inviting Phillips on to his own 
platform, or was he saying to Phillips, " My dear Phillips, let me go 
on to your platform." [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I think the senator is entirely mis- 
taken, and is pushing that point further than it can be legitimately 
carried. My idea is, and was then, that the way to break the domi- 
nation of the master over the government of the country and over the 
slave is, so far as we are a nation, to prevent the extension or existence 
of slavery outside of the slave States, and then to leave the matter 
with them to settle, because it is the only constitutional way, and the 
only way in which I believe it can ever be done peaceably. In my 
judgment, this federal government cannot interfere for the abolition 
of slavery in the States without endangering the safety of the country, 
and bringing about a state of affairs that will be detrimental to the 
interests of both master and slave. 

Mr. BROWN. If that was the idea of the senator from Massachu- 
setts when he wrote the letter, he is certainly the most unfortunate 
man that ever took up a pen to express an idea. While I certainly 
shall not undertake to say that the senator's interpretation of his own 
language is not the true interpretation, I do undertake to say, and 
appeal to the intelligence of the Senate and the world, whether any 
other man would put that interpretation on it. When the senator 
declared: " Three millions of bondmen, groaning under nameless 
woes, demand that we shall cease to reproach one another, and that 
we labor for their deliverance," he used language which would teach 
every man who read it to believe that he was ready for any scheme 



17 

which looked to the emancipation of the slaves in the States. There 
are no three millions of slaves anywhere else groaning under nameless 
woes, nor enjoying the highest degree of human felicity, or any inter- 
mediate slate of misery or happiness between the two; the only slaves 
on this continent to which the Senator could have alluded, were the 
three millions of slaves in the States ; and when he said to Wendell 
Phillips : " You and I, your friends and my friends, must labor un- 
ceasingly for the deliverance of those three millions of bondmen," he 
must have meant — at least, the human mind will conclude, in the 
absence of his own denial, that he meant — the slaves in the States. 
He says he did not so mean, and I am bound to believe him ; but I 
am sorry to trust his candor at the expense of his understanding. 

Mr. WILSON. Without interrupting the speaker too much, I 
wish to say that Mr. Phillips and Mr. Phillips's friends did not so 
understand it. They know my precise and exact position. The letter 
was probably hastily and carelessly written to a friend ; but the con- 
struction the Senator puts on it, no man in Massachusetts ever put on it. 

Mr. BROWN. I expect the Senator has been explaining it there 
as he has here. [Laughter.] 

Mr. WILSON. The question was never raised there at all. 

Mr. BROWN. When he wrote the letter to Wendell Phillips, the 
Abolitionists no doubt expected the co-operation of the Senator and 
his friends ; but when he became startled at his own position, and 
commenced, as he is doing now, to fall back on what he considered 
to be a more impregnable position, I dare say Wendell Phillips said, 
" Well, my dear Wilson, you have not spoken as candidly as I thought 
you did." If, however, the language had been left without explana- 
tion in speeches here or elsewhere, I venture to say Mr. Wendell 
Phillips, and all other men, would have put the same construction on 
it that I do. 

Mr. President, I have already noticed the speeches of the two Sena- 
tors at greater length than I had intended. The material before me 
is not half exhausted ; but if I go on I shall be compelled to overlook 
■ome of their associates — I have a word for each of them. The Sena- 
tor from New York I regard as the very Ajax Telamon of his party ; 
and the Senator from Massachusetts may, I think, be fairly considered 
their Jupiter Tonans. I had, therefore, to devote some time to them; 
but I beg the others not to consider themselves slighted ; I will come 
to them after a while. 

I must, before leaving the Senator from Massachusetts, even at tho 
risk of being tedious, say a word in reply to the speech pronounced 
by him the other day. Almost in the outset of his speech he pro- 
nounced in measured, studied phrase, "those twin gisters of barbarism, 
slavery, and polygamy." 

Mr. WILSON. That was a quotation. 

Mr. BROWN. Well, sir, quotation or original thought, for what 
purpose was it introduced into the Senator's speech ? If he means, 
as he says he does, to accomplish his ends by moral suasion, by 
finally raising up a party in the south to co-operate with him in the 
great work of overturning slavery, let me ask, are men persuaded by 



18 

this sort of denunciation? Is the southern slaveholder to be per- 
suaded by being told that he is the confrere of the citizens of Utah — 
that the man in Mississippi who owns his fifty slaves is as morally 
corrupt as he of Utah who has his fifty wives ? If the Senator meant 
anything, he meant precisely that. If the Senator expects to make 
converts by that species of preaching, he will have to preach to some 
other people than those whom I represent. Let me say now to the 
Senator and all who sympathise with him, that I love this Union ; 
those whom I have the honor here to represent, and in whose name I 
speak to-day, love it ; but if we are to live together in peace, this sort 
of denunciation must cease. This species of reviling, these taunts, 
these insults levelled at every slaveholding family in fifteen States of 
the Union, must come to an end, or we cannot live together in peace 
and quietude. I say no more. 

The senator denies all association with Garrison, and politicians of 
that school ; but when I allude to what Garrison said, the senator is 
quick to spring to his feet for the purpose of putting in a vindication. 
I am always quick, I hope to vindicate my friends, but very slow to 
vindicate my enemies. If they have no sympathizing friends here, 
they can send their vindication through some other channel than 
myself. But in the very act of vindicating his friend, Garrison, from 
the charges which I made, the senator admitted all that I said. My 
declaration was, that Garrison had declared, in the last canvass, that 
if he had a million of votes to dispose of, he would give them all to 
Fremont — of course I meant to say in the contest then going on ; in 
the contest as between Buchanan, Fillmore, and Fremont. I did not 
say that he preferred Fremont to all other men ; but that, as against 
the other two, he would give his million of votes for Fremont. My 
object was to show the bond of sympathy existing between the Ee- 
publican senators here, and the Garrison, Fred. Douglas, and Wen- 
dell Phillips school elsewhere. I think I made my point clear at the 
time ; but, if I failed to do so then, I trust the senator appreciates it 
now. It was, and is, that such was Garrison's partiality, such the 
partiality of his extreme Abolition crew, that if they had millions of 
votes to give^ they would, in that contest, give them all to the Ee- 
publican candidate. Garrison would give a million of votes to Fre- 
mont, and, in return, Fremont would no doubt give a million of votes 
to Garrison ; and the senator, I suspect, would give his million fr> 
either of the two, or to Gerrit Smith, or to his friend, Wendell Phil- 
lips ; and I half suspect if Fred. Douglas was on the ticket it would 
make no serious difference with him. [Laughter.] 

I made the charge the other day, and to it there has been no denial 
from the other side of the chamber, that in the very height of the 
conflict for the presidency, Fred. Douglas, the free negro editor and 
orator, took down the name of Gerrit Smith and put up the name of 
John Charles Fremont. Why not that denied ? My point, as all 
must have seen, was to show the tie that binds the Eepublicans on 
this floor to the extreme Abolition party out of doors. I wanted to 
show how they were being knit together — how, being drawn into 
close companionship, they will, by and by, constitute but one party — 
and then if the extreme Abolition element prevails, as it most likely 



19 

will, the party must become, par excellence, the Abolition party. I 
believe that thousands of good men, now in the Kepublican ranks, 
will abandon them if they come to understand the designs of the 
leaders. I meant to expose these designs — to show that there was a 
plan on foot to Garrisonize the whole party ; and if I have done any- 
thing towards accomplishing this end I am satisfied. 

There are other points in the senator's speech, to which I will 
reply briefly^ He and others have denied that there was anything of 
sectionalism in the late contest ; and their denial is based, if I under- 
stand them correctly, on the ground that the mere fact of their can- 
didates for President and Vice President being from the same section 
of the Union, did not establish sectionalism in the ticket. The sena- 
tor cited the fact that Mr. Calhoun was upon the same ticket with 
G-eneral Jackson, and yet, he said, there was no charge of sectional- 
ism then. Let me say to the senator, none but the feeblest mind 
could ever have pretended that the mere fact of both candidates being 
from the same section afforded evidence of sectionalism. I can select 
a ticket from Vermont and Massachusetts to-day— and surely it would 
be as hard to get it there as anywhere else — which would be purely 
national ; and so I could select one from the South which would be 
purely sectional as against the South. Why, sir, suppose Cassius M. 
Clay, of Kentucky, were nominated for the Presidency, and Francis 
P. Blair, of Maryland, for the Vice Presidency : does any one doubt 
that such a ticket would be a sectional ticket? It would be a ticket 
hostile to the South, although both the nominees reside in slavehold- 
ing States ? Surely I need not say to the senator that it is the senti- 
ment of the party, and of its candidates, that constitute its sectionality, 
and not the residence of one or both its nominees. 

Are your sentiments national ? Were not the sentiments which 
you avowed in the late canvass confined exclusively to the favor of 
one section? Were they not uniformly hostility to the other ? Does 
not the country so recognize them? The senator himself, in the 
progress of his speech, and while uttering his complaint that we of 
the South did not tolerate speakers who entertain his opinion, gave 
us the best evidence of the sectionalism of his party. " Why," said 
he, "did we not have advocates in the South?" "Because," he 
answered, "you would not let the friends of our ticket speak there." 
Why did we not let them speak ? Was it because they were national 
in their sentiments ? Was it because they came to advocate senti- 
ments equally acceptable to the North and to the South, equally 
favorable^ to the one section as to the other ? No, sir, the senator 
knows this was not the reason. The senator knew perfectly well that 
the reason why orators of his party were not allowed to speak in the 
South was simply this : that they came to speak against our institu- 
tions, against our domestic peace, against our domestic quietude, 
against our_ domestic safety— at least against what we believe to be 
our domestic peace, safety, and quietude ; and of this we simply 
claimed to be the best judges. The charge that we have stifled de- 
bate or attacked the freedom of speech is not true, and those who 
make it know it is not true. 

But, sir, the object of the Senator in introducing this point wag to 



20 

complain of the want of liberality in the Sonth. " Why," said he, 
" your southern people will not permit northern men to go there and 
express their honest sentiments. When they do go, you get up mobs 
and drive them out." Let me say to the Senator, that when he or 
his friends come to the South to utter national sentiments, they will be 
heard with attention and listened to with deference. But when they 
come to preach such sentiments as a Senator on this floor has been 
heard to utter within the last week, they may deem it fortunate if 
they escape the iury of an outraged people. When any man, whether 
he be a Senator or a private citizen, comes to tell our slaves " that 
they have a right to murder their masters, and that he will not advise 
them not to do it," we consider it no breach of hospitality, no viola- 
tion of the freedom of speech, to say that such sentiments shall not be 
expressed in our midst. If the Senator shall ever come to Mississippi 
and say there what I understand he has said recently in this city, he 
will be ejected, if, indeed no severer punishment shall be inflicted on 
him. 

Mr. WILSON. Do I understand theSenator from Mississippi to state 
that I have said in this city any thing of that kind — that I would ad- 
vise the slaves to cut their master's throats, or in any way whatever 
commit any violence? 

Mr. BROWN. I undertake to say, not what the Senator has said, but 
what I understand he has said, from gentlemen who come to me 
avouched as men of character, namely: that he did say, in a public 
hotel in this city, in the last five days, that the slaves had a right to 
kill their masters, and that he would not advise them not to cut their 
masters' throats. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I desire to say here now, that in this 
city, or out of this city, I never harbored a thought of that character, 
and never gave it utterance — never at any time, or upon any occasion. 
If I could speak to the slaves of the South I would utter no voice of 
that character ; I would advise no violence whatever. I do not be- 
lieve in it ; I would not advise it ; on the contrary, I believe that any 
insurrections, any acts of violence on their part, can only end in one 
way, and that is in their own injury. 

Mr. BBOWN. Mr. President, I certainly shall make no question as 
to the veracity of the Senator. I have repeated what I have heard. I 
have repeated what I have in writing from a man whom gentlemen of 
the very highest character assure me is a man of respectability and 
honor. He told me that he heard the Senator say so ; and he asserts, 
likewise, that there were other witnesses present, whose names he gave 
me. If the Senator denies the charge, of course his denial ends the 
controversy. I am not to stand up in the face of the Senate and on 
any proof insist that a Senator has spoken falsely. It is not my duty 
to do so. I will have no question of that sort with the Senator from 
Massachusetts or any one else ; but if he desires to know upon what 
authority I made the statement, I am prepared here, or upon a private 
call, to produce the evidence. 

Much has been said, Mr. President, of an irritating character, on 
both sides of this slavery question. I do not know that the breach 
between the North and the South can ever be healed. But it is very 



21 

certain that those who desire peace should throw their oil on the water 
and not into the fire. While, therefore, I shall, as always heretofore, 
refuse to make unmanly concessions, I will abstain from saying any 
thing that is irritating or unnecessarily severe. I am not ashamed to 
say that I want peace. 

Senators on the other side of the chamber, and their sympathizing 
friends all over the country, deplore the condition of the black man in 
the South. I shall not pause now to contrast his condition there with 
what it is in his native country. If the Christian religion be a reality — 
and in its sublime truths I am a firm believer — I am at a loss to un- 
derstand how any man can pretend that the barbarian and cannibal, 
standing on the shores of Africa, and blessed with freedom, is better 
off than the civilized and evangelized slave on a southern plantation, 
cursed with bondage. Allowing all you say of the horrors of slavery 
to be true, they are more than compensated by the moral and religious 
elevation of the African in this country. But what you say is not 
true, and all the world knows it is not. One thing I may mention 
that is true beyond all controversy, and that is, that those most 
familiar with slavery see the least of its horrors. I speak not alone of 
those who live in the South, and who see it every day in all its forms ; 
but of those in the free States most contiguous to it. The people in 
southern Illinois and the eastern part of Indiana live almost in sight 
of slavery, and mingle with it almost every day in Kentucky and Mis- 
souri. The people in these localities, more than any others in the free 
States, trade to the South ; they visit the plantations, and mingle 
freely with the slaves and with their masters. The result is that they 
discard the sickly sentimentality so freely indulged in by those who 
know nothing of slavery except as they see it in Abolition newspapers 
and Black Republican speeches. Fourteen counties in southern Illinois 
gave Buchanan fourteen thousand votes, and Fremont less than four 
hundred. I suppose the mob did not drive the Republican orators out 
of that country, as they did from the southern States ; or if they did, 
I hope it is not to be charged to the account of the slaveocracy. The 
simple truth is, Mr. President, there is not one man in a thousand, 
who knows any thing of slavery practically, that does not believe it to 
be the normal condition of the negro race. Seen through the inter- 
stices of Uncle Tom's Cabin, Garrison's Liberator, or one of the 
Senator's speeches, it is, I grant you, a frightful outrage on humanity. 

The senator alluded, the other day, to certain speeches made by 
leading statesmen in Virginia, which he assured us were more or less 
favorable to his side of this question. Does the senator know why 
such speeches are not made now ? Does he know why the ameliorat- 
ing process in the condition of the slave, then- going on, has ceased? 
Does he know why there are thousands of -slaves in bondage to-day 
who might otherwise have been free? .Does he know why the slaves 
are not educated? why their liberty is restricted, and their bondage 
made to sit more heavily upon them ? If lie does not, I will tell him. 
It is because of the impertinent intermeddlin- of hi mself and his friends 
with matters that did not conce/n them. 

The senator told us, the other day, on what terms we could get his 
.sympathy. Let me tell him on what terms he can get our respect and 



22 

tlie gratitude of the slave. He can get both by simply minding bis 
own business. His present policy is annoying to us and detrimental 
to the slave. I use those words in their proper sense. He may annoy 
and vex the master ; but if he lets slavery alone in the States, as he 
says he will, he will do him no harm. He may damage the slave by 
vexing the master ; but if he leaves the slave in bondage, he will do 
him no good. If you do not mean to overthrow slavery in the States, 
quit talking about it, quit exciting the fears of the master without a 
cause, and quit arousing the hopes of the slave without a purpose. 
That is my advice, and I charge nothing for it. 

There is one point of attack against slavery which seems to be a 
favorite with all its assailants in the Senate, and out of it — and that 
is, its enervating and destroying effect on the people and States where 
it exists. The Senator from Massachusetts went out of his way, the 
other day, to tell us that slavery had converted Mount Vernon into a 
jungle. While these charges are made and dwelt on with peculiar 
unction by the Senator from Massachusetts, it is curious to read and 
ponder the speeches of the Senator from New York, appealing to 
twenty-five millions of freemen to rise in their majesty and put down 
the three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholding aristocrats, who 
are ruling the country, sapping the foundations of liberty, and estab- 
lishing an aristocracy in our midst. If slavery blights as with a mil- 
dew everything that it touches ; if it converts cultivated fields into 
wild jungles, and stately mansions into bat-roosts ; if it renders the 
people imbecile in morals and mentally impotent ; is it not a little 
strange that three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders should so 
have got the start of all the world, that twenty-five millions of free- 
men are called into action to curb their growing power ? The truth 
is felt, Mr. President, though it is not acknowledged, that slavery has 
an elevating and ennobling effect on the white man. It is not true 
that the intellectual giants of the South, who have guided the destiny 
of the nation through, so many years, are but the feeble progeny of an 
imbecile race, rendered morally oblique and intellectually impotent by 
the existence of slavery in the southern States. It is not true that 
three hundred and fifty thousand slaveholders, living in jungles, with 
no activity of mind, and no energy of body, have so excited the fears 
of the senator from New York. When we compare our Washingtons, 
Jeffersons, Madisons, Henrys, Marshalls, Jacksons, and Calhouns, 
with your greatest and best men, no one can say, with truth, that we 
have cause to blush. 

But you tell us that your people are more progressive than ours. 
In the mechanic arts I grant that they are. Your work-shops are 
moase numerous, and on a larger scale than ours. The work-shop is 
the home of vast numbers of your people. In its arts they excel, and 
we rejoice at their success. We rejoice, because it is for our mutual 
advantage that they succeed. We rejoice still more, because their 
success is a part of the common inheritance of the whole people. On 
the other hand, our home is in the cotton, sugar, rice, and tobacco 
fields of the South. In our department who will deny that we have 
succeeded as well as you ? Nowhere on the habitable globe has the 
culture of cotton been brought to such perfection as in the southern 



23 

States of this Union. If gentlemen would only reflect that a proper 
division of labor, and the highest degree of success in every depart- 
ment, is the best evidence of national prosperity, these ill-natured 
flings at the South would cease at once. 

I have no time to pursue this train of thought, though it might be 
done with profit both to the North and to the South. Whatever the 
northern people may say of us, we shall never cease to rejoice in their 
prosperity. 

I must pass on, Mr. President, because I find that my voice is fail- 
ing me, and even my physical strength is giving way.* The senator 
from Maine [Mr. Fessenden] the other day told us that the South was 
constantly making demands ; that the South demanded that such and 
such things should be done by Congress ; and upon the failure of com- 
pliance we threatened a dissolution of the Union. If the senator has 
so understood us, allow me to say to him that he has understood us 
amiss. In making that declaration he did us grievous wrong. The 
South has demanded nothing. She never came to your doors with a 
petition for favor at your hands. She never asked affirmative legis- 
lation from this government, orj the subject of slavery, since it has had 
an existence, save in the pursuit of a clear and admitted constitutional 
right'. Her position has been one of opposition to your action. Not 
being a petitioner, she has uniformly come here to remonstrate against 
your action. Her whole demand, her whole policy, might at any mo- 
ment have been summed up, and it is now, in these three short words : 
"Let us alone." As some evidence that I am right on that question, 
I beg to read for the information of the senator from Maine the posi- 
tions taken by my own State, not through her legislature, not through 
any informal convention, not through any primary mass meeting 
called by a newspaper, but through a convention of her people law- 
fully called to express her sovereign will in reference to this whole 
matter in controversy. So far as she is concerned, she demands no- 
thing ; and I believe I can appeal with perfect confidence to senators 
from all the southern- States to bear me witness that her position is 
substantially the position of their States. First, she says there shall 
be no interference by congressional legislation with the institution of 
slavery in the States. She certainly asks nothing in that but your 
forbearance. She then says, second, the slave trade between" the 
States shall not be interfered with by action of Congress. Then she 
says, third, there shall be no action of Congress on the subject of 
slavery in the District of Columbia, or any place subject to the juris- 
diction of Congress, incompatible with the safety and domestic tran- 
quility, or the rights and honor of the slaveholding States. Then 
she says, fourth, that the refusal of Congress to admit a new State, 
on the ground of her tolerating slavery within her limits, would be 
subject for complaint ; and declares, fifth, that Congress shall pass no 
law prohibiting slavery in any of the Territories ; and, sixth, that 
the repeal of the fugitive slave law, or the neglect or refusal of the 
General Government to enforce the constitutional provision for the re- 
covery of fugitive slaves, would be ground of complaint. 

These are six positions taken in convention, and neither one of 
them looks to affirmative action on the part of the Government ; 



24 

neither of them demands anything but your forbearance ; neither of 
them demands anything except what may be summed up in three 
words — let us alone. Beyond that I undertake to say there is not 
now, has not been, and, in my opinion, never will be, any consider- 
able number of southern people demanding anything. Let us alone; 
leave us where we were left by the Constitution of the United States; 
cease to interfere with us ; cease to make war upon us aud our insti- 
tutions, and our domestic safety, and we shall move on harmoniously 
together as our fathers did before us. 

I feel, Mr. President, that 1 ought to say a word in reference to 
our position as regards the Territories. There seems to me to have 
been a most persevering attempt commenced, and pertinaciously kept 
up, throughout all the northern States, to misrepresent the position 
of the southern States and people on this point. What have we 
asked? What do we ask now? Simply to be treated as equals — to 
be allowed our equal rights and our equal position in the Territories. 
The soil, all must admit, is the common property of all the people or 
of all the States. We have asked that Congress shall so treat it, and 
make no insulting discrimination between the people of Mississippi 
and the people of Massachusetts — between the people of "New York 
and the people of Virginia ; but that all alike shall be allowed to go 
to the Territories, and take with them whatever is recognized as pro- 
perty by the laws of the State from which they go. We have insisted, 
and do yet insist, that whoever makes laws for the Territories is as 
much bound to give protection to us and our property, as to give pro- 
tection to the northern man and his property. No right exists to 
discriminate against us, and we ask no discrimination in our favor. 
I appeal to the plain common sense of every man, if in this there has 
been anything unreasonable. In the name of all that is just, has not 
the citizen'of Virginia the same right to go to Kansas or any other 
Territory, and take with him that which is recognized as property by 
the laws of Virginia, as a New Yorker has to. go and take with him 
that which is recognized as property by the laws of New York? 
Have citizens of Massachusetts, let me ask, any higher privileges in 
the Territory than citizens of Mississippi? And if so, where did 
they obtain them ? How did they derive them? By what authority 
do they undertake to claim for themselves exclusive privileges in th« 
Territories? If gentlemen are prepared to meet us on this ground of 
equality, the whole matter in controversy, as regards the Territories, 
is settled at once. If any Mississippian shall attempt to set up au- 
thority through Congress, the Territories, the people, or the States, 
to exclude citizens of Massachusetts, Maine, New York, New Hamp- 
shire, or of any other State, from the common Territory, he will find 
himself opposed by the whole mass of southern people. We have 
always said, as I say to-day, that the citizens of the New England 
States, the citizens of all the free States, have the same right to go 
to the Territories and take with them that which is recognized as pro- 
perty by the laws of their States, as we claim for ourselves, to go and 
take that which is recognized as property by the laws of the States 
from which we go. Then as to the protection of property after it gets 
there — whoever makes laws for the protection of the property of 



25 

citizens of Maine, New York, New Hampshire, or Massachusetts, is, 
in my judgment— and I stand on that claim— equally bound to make 
laws for the protection of the property of Mississippians, Virginians, 
and Tennesseeans. If you ask no protection for your property- 
through congressional legislation or through territorial legislation, 
we shall ask none for ours. If you ask protection for your property, 
we say we are equally entitled to protection for ours. We say that 
neither Congress nor the Territorial legislature shall, with our con- 
sent, make any insulting discrimination between the people and pro- 
perty of one section of the Union, and the people and property of any 
other section— between the property of a citizen of New Hampshire 
or Massachusetts, and the property of a citizen of Maryland or Mis- 
sissippi. Can we maintain ourselves on the soundness of this posi- 
tion? And if not, why? 

Do gentlemen claim that we are under the ban of the Constitution? 
Do gentlemen pretend that the Constitution which gives us our au- 
thority to be here, which authorizes me to address this august body 
to-day, which brings us into this council house, discriminates against 
the property of the fifteen southern States of this Union? Do they 
pretend that there is anything in that Constitution which denies to 
our property equal protection in the Territories with the property of 
the other sixteen States of the Union ? I undertake to say that it is 
the only article of property which is clearly and distinctly recognized 
by the Constitution. Take anything else, merchandise, live-stock, 
anything you please, and you can find nothing in the Constitution 
which specially and specifically looks to its recognition as property. 
The Constitution does recognize persons held to service (slaves) as 
property, and it recognizes nothing else by name. Every other kind 
of property is left to the protection of local or State legislation. Not 
a word is found in the Constitution about merchandise, live-stock, or 
money as property. Persons bound to service (slaves) alone are men- 
tioned. Then with what pretence of justice is it said, that this pro- 
perty is under the ban of the Constitution, or that it is not equally 
entitled to protection with any other kind of property ? 

The southern States, Mr. President, have been accused of violence 
in the maintenance of their rights under the Constitution, as they 
understand them. Our people are set down as lawless, and are con- 
stantly charged with attempts to carry their points by force. A 
stranger would be very apt to conclude from the accounts given of us, 
that every southern man was a walking citadel. I shall make no de- 
fense against charges like this— our States and our people stand on 
the defensive. Never, sir, never since the government was founded, 
has the North had reason to complain that either the southern States 
or the southern people have interfered with their domestic concerns. 
I have no reproaches to utter ; but can our northern friends say as 
much ? Can they say that they have never interfered with our do- 
mestic affairs? 

When the Kansas bill was passed, we hoped there would be an end 
of this controversy. It was intended to take the question of slavery 
out of Congress, and transfer it to the people of the Territory where it 
properly belonged, and who, as we all agreed, had the right at the, 



2$ 

proper time, to settle it for themselves. What the proper time may be: 
was a subject left open for discussion ; and to this point I will recur 
presently. 

It certainly was not contemplated by any of us that violence was to 
be used by any party to coerce a decision in Kansas. The people 
there, those who were bona fide citizens of the Territory, were to be 
left perfectly free to settle their domestic affairs in their own way. 
subject to but one influence, and that the benign and peaceful influ- 
ence of the Constitution. No sooner had this bill passed than a con- 
certed and powerful effort was set on foot here, and rapidly taken up 
in the New England States, to colonize the Territory with a vagrant 
population. Men were enlisted and sent there, not to cultivate the 
soil, not to erect work- shops and carry on the mechanic arts — no, not 
for these purposes. They went not with the artizan's tools or the 
implements of husbandry in their hands., but with rifles, bowie knives, 
and other deadly weapons. Their object could not be mistaken. 
Instead of colonizing the countrv, and making for themselves benefi- 
cent and wholesome laws — laws under which they meant themselves 
to live — people went to Kansas for no higher purpose than to fan the 
flames of discord, and to make laws from which they meant themselves 
to flee. They went for mischief, and they got it ; they sowed the 
whirlwind, and reaped the storm. They were sent to Kansas to make 
Kansas a free State nolens volens, and the Missourians were inflamed 
to madness by their conduct. It was not, sir, that these men went, or 
the States from which they went, that stirred the blood of Missourians,. 
but it was the purpose for which they went. "When the Kansas bill 
passed/very few of us expected Kansas to become a slave State, and 
very few of us cared much whether it did or not. But when we saw 
an attempt made by the enemies of slavery to plant on the borders of 
a slave State a free- soil colony, with no higher purpose than to harass 
that State — when we saw an attempt made by strangers to enslave the 
bona fide white settlers in Kansas, by forcing on them, not a Kansas 
but a New England government, our people rose en masse, and swore, 
by the God that made them, these things should not be. 

The senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] the other day paraded 
before the Senate a handbill — and he did it with a flourish of trum- 
pets that would have done honor to the fat knight when he claimed 
the credit of killing Hotspur. The handbill spoke of Buchanan and 
Breckinridge, and Free Kansas. The senator evidently thought he 
had made a grand discovery. I certainly do not mean to approve of 
that handbill. It probably suggested an erroneous idea to many who 
saw it. It may have suggested that the Democratic party was for 
Kansas free, as the senator fr; m New Hampshire understood the word 
"free ;" and if it did, it suggested a falsehood. The Democratic party 
as a party is neither for free Kansas nor slave Kansas, as the free-soilers 
understand the words " free" and "slave." The Democratic party 
is for leaving Kansas perfectly free, at the right time, to settle the 
slavery question for herself, restrained only, as we all are in our action, 
by the provisions of the Federal Constitution. In this sense the 
Democrats are for free Kansas. The senator's idea, if I understand 
him, is to make Kansas free by releasing the black man from the au- 



27 

thority of his master, and then force a government on the white people 
in the Territory through the agency of New England emigrant aid 
societies. His free Kansas makes the negro free by enslaving the 
white man ; but my fr.ee Kansas makes the white man free, and leaves 
the negro where the Constitution left him — subject to the authority of 
his master. 

I was somewhat surprised, Mr. President, the other day, to hear 
the senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] in catechising the senator 
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bigler,] who was then addressing the Senate, 
raise the question as to how far we on the Democratic side of the 
house concurred in opinion upon the mooted point of squatter sove- 
reignty. I suppose the object of the senator in introducing that point 
was to make mischief — to stir up strife between senators on this side 
of the chamber. If that was his purpose, let me say to him that he 
fell, as he will continue to fall, very far short of his mark. That 
there may be shades of difference in our opinions is very likely ; that 
I do not, on every point, concur with my distinguished and venerable 
friend from Michigan is probable ; but that there is any difference be- 
tween us which can by possibility prevent our acting "in harmony for 
the accomplishment of certain great purposes which the national 
Democracy have in view, I utterly deny. I should prefer to have my 
friend agree with me, as he may prefer to have me agree with him ; but 
our difference is not such, a I shall presently show, that we may not, 
without sacrifice on either side, act together on practical issues. 

But, sir, how comes it that the senator from Illinois, how 
comes it that other senators on his side have all of a sudden 
found something so monstrous in this doctrine of squatter sove- 
reignty ? When had we the first evidence exhibited to us of the 
power of squatter sovereignty on this continent? Excuse me, sir, 
but I undertake to say, that the first exhibition of it was in the State 
which you have the honor solely at this moment to represent on the 
floor of the Senate, [Mr. Weller in the chair.] When the people of 
California assembled in convention, and undertook to frame a State 
constitution for themselves, they were all squatters ; they were in the 
country without authority of law : there was no law authorizing them 
to be there. When they assembled in convention on the high mission 
of making a State constitution, they assembled there to perform an 
act of sovereignty ; when they made the constitution and set up a 
State government in all its forms, it was an act of sovereignty per- 
formed by squatters and by nobody else. 

Now, sir, I ask senators on the other side of the chamber, whether 
they did not sanction that proceeding? I pray you, gentlemen, were 
you not, one and all, in favor of admitting California under her 
squatter-sovereignty constitution ? Was not the senator from Illinois 
the advocate for the admission of California under the constitution 
thus formed ? Was not the Senator from New York, and he from 
Massachusetts, and he from Ohio, all around the chamber, wherever 
they are, were they not friends of the admission of California under 
her squatter-sovereignty constitution? Then what right have they 
to complain of squatter-sovereignty? And then who was the first 
representative of squatter-sovereignty on this floor ? When California 
was admitted, there were already at the door of the Senate two gen- 



28 

tlemen asking for admission. One of them was John Charles Fre- 
mont. He came here as a senator, the first who presented himself 
from California, and he was the very embodiment of squatter-sove- 
reignty. He had no constituency but a squatter-sovereignty constit- 
uency. He came from no State but a State brought into being by 
squatter-sovereigns. These gentlemen, to a man, advocated his ad- 
mission. They not only went for the admission of the State, but for 
the admission of her senators. Thus they endorsed the whole pro- 
ceeding up to that time. I suspect that they, and all their class of 
politicians, are very much like one I heard speaking lately. He said 
he was for squatter-sovereignty if it worked out in his favor, and 
against it if it did not. 

Jn my opinion, squatter-sovereignty is a misnomer, and territorial 
sovereignty a humbug. I understand, sir, what is meant by State 
sovereignty, and in my opinton there is no other kind of sovereignty 
existing in this country. Squatter-sovereignty, territorial sovereignty, 
and popular sovereignty, (when applied to the Territories,) all belong 
to the same category, and they are all political absurdities in my 
opinion. But I am not going to bore the Senate by giving the reason! 
why I think so. 

We agreed to let Kansas and all the other Territories manage their 
own affairs in their own way, subject only to the Constitution. Wt 
differed as to what a Territory might rightfully do under the Consti- 
tution. My friend from Michigan [Mr. Cass] thought, and still thinki, 
a territorial legislature, such as that in Kansas, has the right, under 
the Constitution, to exclude slavery. I think differently. He is not 
seeking to have his ideas enacted into a law by Congress ; nor am I. 
He admits that if the legislature of Kansas has not the right under 
the Constitution to exclude slavery, Congress cannot confer it ; and I 
know, if the legislature has the right Congress cannot take it away. 
Therefore, neither of us propose that Congress shall do anything. 
We voted together on the Kansas bill, and agreed then to refer all our 
difference of opinion to the Supreme Court of the United States — the 
only tribunal on earth competent to decide between us. When that 
decision is rendered, we both stand solemnly pledged to abide by it. 
I speak not now of what a sovereign State, in the exercise of her re- 
served rights, may do — that is a subject for future consideration and 
decision. Now, sir, the difference between my honorable friend and 
myself is precisely the difference between Democrats who believe in 
squatter-sovereignty, and Democrats who do not believe in it. 

If an unorganized Territory, such as California was in 1849, such 
as Kansas was in 1853, such as the Indian Territory outside of Ar- 
kansas now is, shall undertake to exclude slavery, the Senator from 
Michigan and myself agree that it undertakes to do what it has no 
right to do. But if an organized Territory, like Kansas or Nebraska 
undertakes, through its legislative council, to exclude slavery, the 
senator thinks they have the right to do it. I do not think so. Thio 
he calls popular sovereignty. I call it the assumption of a right not 
conferred by the Constitution, and therefore not existing in the Terri- 
tory. He may be right. I think he is not. But neither of us desire* 
or expects Congress to decide between us. 

The senator from Illinois, [Mr. Trumbull,] the other day interro- 



29 

gated the senator from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Bigler,] as to what Mr. . 
Buchanan's views were on this point My friend from Pennsylvania 
declined to reply, because he had no authority to do so. The friends 
of Mr. Buchanan were satisfied with his position on this point before 
they nominated and elected him, and they are not likely to fall out 
with him now on account of any suggestions coming from his enemies, 
secret or open. That he will hold the scales of justice in equal bal- 
ance between the North and the South I have no doubt ; and if he 
does, his friends North and South will adhere to him. They were 
strong enough to elect him ; and if he fulfils their hopes, as I am 
sure he will, they will show themselves strong enough to carry his 
administration through in triumph. Mr. Buchanan may laugh his 
enemies to scorn. He has only to feel the inspiration that moved the 
hearts of his friends at Cincinnati, and stand firmly on the platform 
laid down by them, and they will throw over him their arms, and 
build around him a rampart that will defy the power of the Black Re- 
publicans and all their allies. 

But, to return to the Territories : We of the Democratic faith all 
agree that they may, at the proper time, settle the slavery question 
for themselves. Some think it may be done sooner ; but we all agree 
that when the people of a Territory meet in convention to frame a 
State constitution, they may, in that constitution, admit or exclude 
•lavery, as they please ; and we agree, further, that their decision is 
final. If Kansas comes here with a constitution made by her bona 
fide people, free from all outside influences, excluding slavery, there 
is not a Democrat in either House of Congress who will not vote for 
her admission ; and if, on the other hand, she comes with a constitu- 
tion similarly made tolerating slavery, there is not a Democrat who 
will not vote for her admission. .Breakup your emigrant aid societies 
at the North, and all interference from the South will cease. Then* 
Kansas, being left perfectly free to regulate her domestic affairs in 
her own way, may assemble her people in convention, frame her con- 
stitution to suit herself, admit or exclude slavery as she pleases, and 
she will be welcomed into the Union with open arms by every friend 
of free institutions from the Aristook to the Rio Grande, and from the 
Atlantic to the far-off Pacific. Sir, the Democracy has stood for fifty 
i years, like our own ocean-bound Republic. The waves of faction have 
beaten upon it, and they have broken, in harmless ripples, at its feet. 
It stands to-day a fit type of our glorious country — the hope of the op- 
pressed in every land, and a beacon-light to the sons of freedom 
throughout the world. It will uphold the Constitution. It will pre- 
serve the Union. It will disappoint the tyrants of the Old World, 
and the enemies of liberty in the New. Democracy will go on con- 
quering and to conquer, until all parties shall confess its dominion, 
and the whole world be converted to the sublime truths which it 
teaches. This is its mission. N 

We mean, Mr. President, to settle this slavery question on a firm 
and lasting, because on a just, liberal, and constitutional basis. We 
mean to stop agitation ; we mean to give repose to the South, and 
quiet to the whole country ; we mean to rout the Abolitionists and 
bury Black Republicanism so low that the sound of Gabriel's trumpet 
will not reach it on the day of judgment ! This is our hope ; this our 



30 

prayer ; this our confident expectation ; but if we shall be deceived in 
this — if it shall please God to prosper our enemies — if there shall be 
no settlement — if agitation is kept up — if the South can have no 
peace — if our enemies have the power, and are resolved to use it in 
breaking up the Union, and trampling the Constitution under foot — 
then we will turn to the senator from New York, the great chieftain 
of his party, and the author of all our woes, and we will say to him 
and his infatuated allies, as Abram said to Lot: " Let there be no 
strife, I pray thee, between me and thee, and between my herdsmen 
and thy herdsmen, for we are brethren. Is not the whole land before 
thee ? Separate thyself, I pray thee, from me : if thou wilt take the 
left hand, then I will go to the right ; or if thou depart to the right 
hand, then I will go to the left." If this appeal shall fail to reach 
the heart of the senator and his allies, there will be but one alterna- 
tive left us, and that an appeal to the god of battles. May Heaven, 
in its mercy, avert such a calamity ! 



si 




*«< 



(V 6 ° " • ♦ ^3 A^ • l ' 















^% 








'. "W •- 




*bV* 









J 0>v 
















: y* 



^ . 




■#. rt v n . . . 'Pi. 



■■" N l > 



V\£RT 
BOOK6(NOINC H 
Grtntvifte Pi 

Jan Feb 198? 




.0* o»"*«. O. 



A> . 



^ V -^ ^° 



,0" .«"•- 



